“15% at the top continue to get whatever they want, as they always have.”
Wrong. If a free market does not exist, then what is the motivation for private companies in the health care industry to develop innovation? The wealthiest only have access to the products that are being offered. If a company can only freely service 15% of a market, their motivation dissappears.
“Health care will improve for the 25% at the bottom.”
Wrong again. The government must cap prices to claim cost reduction. When prices are capped, in any commodity, that commodity faces shortages. If health service providers are faced with caps on reimbursements, they are not motivated to work more (add resources) in order to meet the need of the expanded market. The result will be shortages which will be evident with long lines (wait time increases) for what should be basic services.
“Quality and availability will decline to some extent for the 60% in the middle.”
Wrong again, but really only by the degree of your reduction forecast and the size of the population affected. It will decline by huge margins for all. This has been proven every time any government moves to centralized planning. In the centralized planning governments, the only commodity that sees sharp increases in effectiveness and a broader market reach is brute force by those carrying government guns.
Don’t be fooled by those telling you differently.
Nonsense. Every other provider of luxury goods and services in the world appears to be able to do quite well servicing <15% of the market. I haven't noticed Ferrari or Louis Vuitton losing all incentive to continue in business.
What will happen, of course, is that with a smaller pool of money available, fewer new technologies will be developed and implemented that would otherwise be the case.
A long line for service is an improvement over no service. I didn't say "the poor" would receive the best available health care, only that for many of them it will be better than what they presently have available to them.
The idea that any government-run health system will result in worse outcomes for every group is just the flip side of the idiocy put out by proponents that outcomes will improve for every group while costs still go down.
I think my projection is pretty good, though I have no idea how the percentage will fall out. I agree that for "most" people the results will be somewhat worse than they are now.
Excellent. Your posting clearly show a brilliant understanding of true free markets in operation.
Outside of it's proper Constitutional duties, government does indeed corrupt and inevitably destroys everything is touches.
Milton Friedman would be smiling and agreeing with everything you have written.